No compromise will be allowed in non compoundable offence

No compromise will be allowed in non compoundable offence ( Mujjan Ali Panhwar )

----S.345---Compounding of offence---Offence against individual/ society---Distinction---Offence against individual cannot be equated with that of an offence against society---Individual does not have any right to compound the offence which in fact was against the society and not against him.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 345(6) & (7)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 337-A(i), 337-F(i) & 459---Qatl-i-amd, Shajjah-i-Khafifah, Damihah and Hurt while Trespass---Compounding of offence---Accused were convicted and sentenced for imprisonment of various terms by Trial Court---Accused sought their acquittal on the basis of compromise effected between the parties---Validity---Offence under S. 495, P.P.C. was an independent offence which had its own punishment in addition to punishment for causing Qatl or causing hurt or attempt to cause Qatl or hurt therefore, such offence could not be merged into main offence---When one was tried for two different offences and awarded punishments in both of them, then competence of one to compound one offence could not affect legality of sentence awarded for other independent offence by competent court of law---Likelihood of failure of prosecution to prove charge was no ground to make a non-compoundable offence as compoundable---Attempt to compound an offence, even if failed, could not bring any consequence on merits of the case however, failure of prosecution/complainant to establish charge could give certain rights to accused against complainant/prosecution---High Court accepted compromise to the extent of convictions awarded under Ss. 302(b), 337-A(i) & 337-F(i), P.P.C. while for the offence under S. 459, P.P.C. the same was declined---Application was allowed accordingly.

2004 PCr.LJ 736; 2007 MLD 1269; PLD 2008 Kar. 420; Muhammad Rawab v. State 2004 SCMR 1170; Muhammad Tufail v. Sessions Judge Attock PLD 2004 SC 89 and Umer Hayat v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 125 ref.
2016 M L D 580 [Sindh]

Before Salahuddin Panhwar, J
MOHARRAM alias MAROO---Appellant
Versus
The STATE---Respondent